Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Samosa)
    But what do the Rohingya people have to do with the countries imposing those laws? They're not the ones imposing them, so how can you justify them being treated like this.
    apart from faith, culture and ideology and a desire to impose the same culture faith and ideology in every country they reside in?

    As I said we can't keep tolerating intolerance because they will make us as bad as they are.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    No not an eye for an eye but I see no issues with treating people how they would treat others.

    As I said we need to stop tolerating intolerance

    But to ignore history means we are due to repeat the errors and Islam has a long and bloody history from it inception to today.

    That is eye for an eye. In fact it's further than that, it's eye for a future possible eye, or eye for hypothetical eye.

    And I agree we need to stop tolerating intolerance, preserving tolerance is sacrosanct. But the discriminatory ethnic and religious laws against the Rohingya is not defending tolerance, it's trying to legislate ethnic supremacism and religious supremacism.

    The history point wasn't about ignoring history it was me trying to ask how far back is the limit when it comes to justifying discrimination and how close must the connection between peoples be.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garfeeled)
    That is eye for an eye. In fact it's further than that, it's eye for a future possible eye, or eye for hypothetical eye.

    And I agree we need to stop tolerating intolerance, preserving tolerance is sacrosanct. But the discriminatory ethnic and religious laws against the Rohingya is not defending tolerance, it's trying to legislate ethnic supremacism and religious supremacism.

    The history point wasn't about ignoring history it was me trying to ask how far back is the limit when it comes to justifying discrimination and how close must the connection between peoples be.
    Hold on so to preserve tolerance we need to prevent Islam or Muslims practicing their religion freely (I think you agree with this part as Islam is inherently intolerant)

    But it seems we will continue to disagree here as I see the laws mentioned here mirrored in Muslim communities (for example will the Rohingya be removing Islams restrictions on who they can marry? if not them can they complain about external restrictions on who they can marry for example? same goes for apostasy or who they do business with (basically they need to renounce most of sharia)
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    Hold on so to preserve tolerance we need to prevent Islam or Muslims practicing their religion freely (I think you agree with this part as Islam is inherently intolerant)
    No that's not what I am saying (unless by practise freely you mean stoning people and restricting gender equality and so on in which case then yes. But by practise freely I think of worshipping reading and speaking about the Quran and preaching and so on, such things should be protected and permitted)

    But it seems we will continue to disagree here as I see the laws mentioned here mirrored in Muslim communities (for example will the Rohingya be removing Islams restrictions on who they can marry? if not them can they complain about external restrictions on who they can marry for example? same goes for apostasy or who they do business with (basically they need to renounce most of sharia)
    I'm not saying there isn't similarities just that

    1 the discrimination facing by the Rohingya is more extreme than what non Muslims historically and currently experience under Islamic rule. As far as I know there was no restriction on the number of children they could have, and those that were able to leave were permitted to do so, non Muslims were allowed access to education and so on. All things legally denied to the Rohingya

    2 that the similarities do not permit the discrimination they face.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garfeeled)
    No that's not what I am saying (unless by practise freely you mean stoning people and restricting gender equality and so on in which case then yes. But by practise freely I think of worshipping reading and speaking about the Quran and preaching and so on, such things should be protected and permitted)



    I'm not saying there isn't similarities just that

    1 the discrimination facing by the Rohingya is more extreme than what non Muslims historically and currently experience under Islamic rule. As far as I know there was no restriction on the number of children they could have, and those that were able to leave were permitted to do so, non Muslims were allowed access to education and so on. All things legally denied to the Rohingya

    2 that the similarities do not permit the discrimination they face.
    Yes that's what I mean basically sharia and it's implementation which is what a large proportion of Muslims want where ever they go so yes stoning people and restricting gender equality are part of Islam and have to be accepted if we are going to be tolerant towards them

    1) no it's not it's nowhere near as bad as non Muslims face in most Muslim countries and here we are talking persecution for well over 1000 odd years (where are all the pagans in Saudi? given this was, until Islams conception, a country just like Burma full of all faiths where are they now? In fact I think I can show you for every Muslim majority county it's minorities are currently shrinking in number rather than growing as we would expect)

    2) Yes they do. On one hand your are arguing it's OK to have a law that restricts who Muslims can marry (as it is Muslims enforcing this) but on the other had it's wrong to have a law that restricts who Muslim can marry (as it is Non - Muslim enforcing this)

    I see no difference between the two.

    as I said if we want to become as bad as they are we will continue to let them practice their faith freely if we don't then we must become intolerant to their intolerance.

    and while they dominate in most spheres of intolerance I will not shed a tear over this
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Don't worry I'm sure they'll all leave and come to diversity land
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chemting)
    When will the wall come along? Will Thailand pay for it?

    I don't think anything justifies mob-rule...

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    bangladesh

    rohinyas were immigrants from bangladesh.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HucktheForde)
    bangladesh

    rohinyas were immigrants from bangladesh.
    Yeah you're right sorry.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Literally in every single one of these countries, the Islamic religion is at the heart of the issue. But somehow it's every single other group is to blame?
    How people can deny and defend such an obvious common factor totally baffles me.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GwynLordOfCinder)
    Literally in every single one of these countries, the Islamic religion is at the heart of the issue. But somehow it's every single other group is to blame?
    How people can deny and defend such an obvious common factor totally baffles me.
    Doesn't mean we ignore the other groups. It's not necessarily a one way street with what's happening.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Samosa)
    But what do the Rohingya people have to do with the countries imposing those laws? They're not the ones imposing them, so how can you justify them being treated like this.
    Those laws were put in place because of the Rohingya's actions. I don't like it either, but it's a hell of a lot better than allowing them to commit genocide.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohing...estern_Myanmar

    interesting read
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    I realise debating about this makes barely any difference to the world. It's interesting to see everyone's different opinions. I suppose we can just chat about it and speculate only. Unfortunately none of us know how each side truly feels and what their opinions are, but I suppose none of that matters. Continually watching and arguing with one another what everything means. How everyone should feel about it, but how does that help anyone out? I see now how much opinions and speculations vary, clashes like these don't do anything. I suppose at the end of the day just being aware is sufficient for most. The end goal of finding compromise will never be reached and you can't just say it's all Islam's fault, it's a two sided fight. But people end up stuck in the middle of it unfortunately. That's just my thoughts, I suppose no one will really agree with me but eh what can ya do.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Indeed. It just shows what barbarians the Rohingya are.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    Ludicrous! Absolutely ludicrous!

    Do you have any idea why that's happening in Burma? Clearly not, or you'd be praising the Burmese for putting national security first. Let me enlighten you all.

    The Rohingya were never Burmese, they were unwanted immigrants who flooded to Burma under British rule. The Buddhists tolerated them though. The Rohingya didn't understand that they're guests. They were violent towards the Burmese Sangha for decades, rape cases were significantly high in areas with large moslem populations, in fact it was only the Buddhists who were being raped in almost every case.

    What started off the conflict was much worse. Initially, three Buddhist girls were found raped and murdered (the culprits were moslems). One was only seven. Soon after a Buddhist family was attacked and refused service when they went to buy food at a moslem-owned store. Soon after that, a Buddhist monk was murdered in an indescribably savage way by Rohingya. The man was innocent and was a pillar of his community. He had set up a school for the children of his village (children of all faiths no less) and was out buying books for his students as there were about 200 students and only about 140 books. He was a man who lived only for the sake of others. While out buying books, he was attacked by Rohingyas. They slashed the back of his head with a knife, beat him, ripped off his robes (which is to us as offensive as pulling a hijab off is to moslems) and then dragged him into the nearby mosque. There they castrated him, poured acid in his face and burned him alive. He died later in hospital. This attack was unprecendented and unprovoked. The moslems butchered him simply because he was a Buddhist.

    For Buddhists, the community (Sangha) is one of the components of the Triple Gem, alongside the Buddha and the Dhamma. The Sangha is like an incredibly close knit family. Other Buddhists are almost like relatives. Monks in particular are highly respected among the Sangha. So you can imagine the anguish that this noble man's death caused. For Buddhists it was like having the above attack done to your cousin. Not only that, but those 200-odd kids that relied on him for an education don't have a future anymore. They've got no education now and as a result they're doomed to remain poor.

    It gets worse though. One of the moslem rapists was caught soon after. He confessed that his imam had been handing out bounties for every Buddhist murdered. Women had to be raped as well in order for the bounty to be valid. Upon investigating the other mosques, the Burmese police found that this wasn't a one off incident. All of the mosques had been doing it. At that point it became clear that the moslems had been planning the genocide of the Buddhists. Naturally, that made them all a threat to national security and to the safety of all non-moslems in Burma. The Burmese government has a responsibility to protect it's people and due to how serious the threat was, containment of the moslems in prison camps was the only way to ensure the safety of the Burmese people.

    None of us like it, none of us wanted it and all of us wish it could end. But that's all out of our hands. Until the Rohingya are removed from Burma or learn to live peacefully, this won't end. Buddhists have even been trying to help them, despite everything they've done to us. Temples are sheltering the (few) innocent Rohingya (who are actually being attacked by other Rohingya for not attacking Buddhists) and the Burmese government is trying to get them Bengali citizenship, which is where they originally came from. That way they'd have somewhere to go where they'd be among other moslems and can leave peacefully. Unfortunately Bangladesh won't take them in due to their unforgivable violence towards the Burmese.

    In typical left-wing fashion, the media has twisted the story to hide all of the atrocities that the Rohingya have committed and the help that Buddhists are trying to give them. They've made it look like ethnic cleansing, which is not at all the case.

    https://www.scribd.com/doc/175530387...BUDDHIST-WOMEN
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g2D...ature=youtu.be

    I suggest we all have a minute of silence for this poor woman's husband and the other's who have been killed in this conflict, both Buddhist and Rohingya.



    "Oppression of muslims." I'm sorry but that's ridiculous.
    Honestly couldn't rep this enough.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    Yes that's what I mean basically sharia and it's implementation which is what a large proportion of Muslims want where ever they go so yes stoning people and restricting gender equality are part of Islam and have to be accepted if we are going to be tolerant towards them
    By that standard then yes they shouldn't be allowed to practise freely, but then nor would a significant number of those that follow abrahamic religion


    1) no it's not it's nowhere near as bad as non Muslims face in most Muslim countries and here we are talking persecution for well over 1000 odd years (where are all the pagans in Saudi? given this was, until Islams conception, a country just like Burma full of all faiths where are they now? In fact I think I can show you for every Muslim majority county it's minorities are currently shrinking in number rather than growing as we would expect)
    Could you give an example of long term legal abuses that match the degree of abuse faced by the Rohingya. I am not saying by any means that non Muslims (particularly polytheists) weren't incredibly mistreated and their human rights trampled upon under Islamic rule. There are a few historic examples but most from a long time ago (for example prosecution of Hindus under Islamic rule was particularly horrific)

    2) Yes they do. On one hand your are arguing it's OK to have a law that restricts who Muslims can marry (as it is Muslims enforcing this) but on the other had it's wrong to have a law that restricts who Muslim can marry (as it is Non - Muslim enforcing this)

    I see no difference between the two.

    as I said if we want to become as bad as they are we will continue to let them practice their faith freely if we don't then we must become intolerant to their intolerance.

    and while they dominate in most spheres of intolerance I will not shed a tear over this
    I am not argue that Muslims should be restricted to marry anyone by non Muslims or Muslims alike (not at least on religious terms obvious bans should be I place, such as underage marraige and so on). I don't see a difference between the two either but again they are just as bad is not an arguement to me. Yes we should fight intolerance and oppression but we should do it in a way that doesn't make us as oppressive or intolerant. Enacting laws of religious and ethnic prosecution is wrong regardless of how intolerant the people in question are.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garfeeled)
    Intolerance cannot be tolerated from Muslims or against Muslims. It's completely unjust to ban Muslims from having more than two children but it is completely just (arguably morally required) to challenge homophobia within Muslims and the community as a whole.
    What do you do if then Muslims on average have 5 children per family and will become the majority and then legislate against all the tolerant policies that you would otherwise like to see?

    Perhaps the current majority can join in the fertility battle but inevitably that is going to end the possibility of women having careers which you probably also consider an important value. It's also going to rapidly result in the country becoming an unpleasant place to live with high density and intense competition for resources.

    Or perhaps you simply disallow them from legislating things you consider intolerant even as "you" become a vanishing minority, but it's hard to see how your state then would differ from apartheid South Africa, and it's likely you'd lose militarily sooner or later anyway.

    I don't claim to have the answer to this question but I see no indication that those who support equal rights for Muslims have even considered the problem.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    What do you do if then Muslims on average have 5 children per family and will become the majority and then legislate against all the tolerant policies that you would otherwise like to see?

    Perhaps the current majority can join in the fertility battle but inevitably that is going to end the possibility of women having careers which you probably also consider an important value. It's also going to rapidly result in the country becoming an unpleasant place to live with high density and intense competition for resources.

    Or perhaps you simply disallow them from legislating things you consider intolerant even as "you" become a vanishing minority, but it's hard to see how your state then would differ from apartheid South Africa, and it's likely you'd lose militarily sooner or later anyway.

    I don't claim to have the answer to this question but I see no indication that those who support equal rights for Muslims have even considered the problem.
    Well given that Muslim birth rates are slowing down the non Muslims majority can always engaging in a bit more birthing (I do agree that is a problem, people are having less children than before and that is a problem). So there are several things to be done beyond that though including legal assurance of protection against sexism and homophobia and legal assurance of free speech, freedom of religion and so on. I also support severally restricting immigration from intolerant cultures and the immigration that is allowed requires support for gender equality, freedom of religon so on so forth.

    I don't claim to used an answer t the problem either. Just that the solution of extreme discrimination that the Rohingya is not the answer.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garfeeled)
    Could you give an example of long term legal abuses that match the degree of abuse faced by the Rohingya.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yazidis

    and look at the history of Christians in Egypt

    http://www.meforum.org/23/egypt-persecution

    The same history can be found for any minority in any Muslim Majority countries bar a few (and I do mean a few)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garfeeled)
    legal assurance of free speech, freedom of religion and so on.
    This can't happen in any country or community where sharia raises its ugly head.

    Look up the Cairo Declaration of human rights

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_...ights_in_Islam
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: May 28, 2016
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.